Talk:Glagolitic script

Other side of what?

2nd para: 'On the other side, Svatopluk I followed the interests of the Frankish Empire and prosecuted the students of Cyril and Methodius.' 'Other side' = Eastern church? In which case, why not say so? Robert P Connolly (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Reworked the sentence based on the Svatopluk I article's mention of the situation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Old East Slavic

@Jingiby

Sporadic instances aside, Glagolitic survived beyond the 12th century as a primary script in Croatian lands alone, although from there a brief attempt at reintroduction was made in the West Slavic area in the 14th century through the Emmaus Benedictine Monastery in Prague, where it survived well into the 15th century, the last manuscript with Glagolitic script dating to 1450–1452. Its use for special applications continued in some Cyrillic areas, for example in the Bologna Psalter (1230-1241), the Sinodalna 895 Menaion (1260), the RPK 312 Gospel (13th), the Karakallou Epistolary (13th), the NBKM 933 Triodion (13th), the Skopje 1511 Octoechos (13th), the BRAN 4.9.39 Miscellany (13th), the Hilandar Chrysorrhoas (13th/14th), the Mazurin 1698 Pandects (13th/14th), the Sofia Psalter (1337), the SANU 55 Epistolary (1366–1367), the RNB F.п.I.2 Psalter (14th), the Čajniče Gospel (late 14th), the Radosav Miscellany (1444–1461), the Prague NM IX.F.38 Psalter (18th) and in the initials of many Old East Slavic manuscripts of the Prophets with Commentary dating to the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Most later use in the Cyrillic world was for cryptographic purposes, such as in the Krushedol Miscellany (15th), the RNB F.п.I.48 Prologue (1456), the Piskarev 59 Isaac (1472), the Shchukin 511 Miscellany (1511) and the Hludov Gospel (17th/18th).

In the above paragraph you reverted my change to:

Sporadic instances aside, Glagolitic survived beyond the 12th century as a primary script in Croatian lands alone, although from there a brief attempt at reintroduction was made in the West Slavic area in the 14th century through the Emmaus Benedictine Monastery in Prague, where it survived well into the 15th century, the last manuscript with Glagolitic script dating to 1450–1452. Its use for special applications continued in some Cyrillic areas, for example in the Bologna Psalter (1230-1241), the Sinodalna 895 Menaion (1260), the RPK 312 Gospel (13th), the Karakallou Epistolary (13th), the NBKM 933 Triodion (13th), the Skopje 1511 Octoechos (13th), the BRAN 4.9.39 Miscellany (13th), the Hilandar Chrysorrhoas (13th/14th), the Mazurin 1698 Pandects (13th/14th), the Sofia Psalter (1337), the SANU 55 Epistolary (1366–1367), the RNB F.п.I.2 Psalter (14th), the Čajniče Gospel (late 14th), the Radosav Miscellany (1444–1461), the Prague NM IX.F.38 Psalter (18th) and in the initials of many manuscripts of the Prophets with Commentary dating to the late 15th and early 16th centuries from the Muscovy and Russia. Most later use in the Cyrillic world was for cryptographic purposes, such as in the Krushedol Miscellany (15th), the RNB F.п.I.48 Prologue (1456), the Piskarev 59 Isaac (1472), the Shchukin 511 Miscellany (1511) and the Hludov Gospel (17th/18th).

The term "Old East Slavic" works well for earlier manuscripts, but the upper cutoff is far from agreed upon. You can cite sources in favour of your choice, or sources in opposition, with many arguing for a "Middle Russian" in between etc. But none of this matters, because none of the manuscripts in question were written in East Slavic aside from marginal notes. They are Church Slavonic. If you have no further objections, please undo your reversion. Ivan (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank yo for this explanation, Ivan. Jingiby (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

General question: I can understand the cultural and political reasons for the conflicts between this and other scripts, but not why they arose. If some other linguistic group uses a different script, who cares, really? Jackaroodave (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Croatian angular J |-|-P

There is evidence that the croatian glagolitic alphabet had a letter for J independent from the i variants. This letter isnt in unicode tho but i think it should be included in wikipedia as an image for the time being. It looks like the letter Ⰼ but the top bar is in the middle. Something like this: |-|-P. Link1 right in front of the letter K. Korean991 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be a later graphical variant of the letter Ⰼ. Some people's fonts will display Ⰼ that way already. In later times, /j/ phoneme was sometimes written so, sometimes with Ⰻ, sometimes Ⰻ̆ etc. We've already written articles that include later Glagolitic orthographies, but not published them yet. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 15:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

"Of the major European scripts, only the Arabic script is comparable in this regard."

This has to be bait, right? ~2026-82792-7 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"and Cyrillic"

Anonymous editor, please explain your removal of "and Cyrillic". As far as Slavic language monuments are concerned, Cyrillic was not outpaced by Latinic until the 16th/17th centuries. Depending on where you were, pre-Turkish forms of Cyrillic remained the dominant written script as recently as the 19th (Poljica), while newly arrived populations brought forms of Cyrillic that survive to the present day. I wrote this. Can you guess why I didn't compose a similar List of Cyrillic manuscripts? Because even if I only focused on those written within the Kingdom of Croatia, I would still be writing it today. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 09:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The source fails in WP:OR and WP:V. The source is controversial because it is nationalist partisan and makes revisionist and irredentist (HAZU case) claims on Bosnian and/or Serbian Cyrillic works, most of them simply labelling as "Croatian", dishonestly ignoring and mistreating its details, only using Croatian POV. It's controversial and should not be in the lede. I checked the source, and there is no page, quote or passage stating that. It's WP:RS and WP:OR problem. A peer-reviewed English book ref explains the controversy and that needs caution .--~2026-36874-46 (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern about Damjanović's ethnic labels. For example, when the primary sources he cites use the term 'Illyrian' for the language, he will often "translate" this as 'Croatian'. Remember, you removed "and Cyrillic", not "and Croatian Cyrillic". However, the source as it is used in the lead is only employed to corroborate the persistence of Cyrillic within the area in question. Damjanović himself cites Berčić's classification (see Bukvar staroslovenskoga jezika glagolskimi pismeni za čitanje crkvenih knjig) and proceeds to detail a number of cases of survival of Cyrillic, having perhaps misjudged your motivation for removal. I only cited him specifically because I wanted to introduce you to the topic of peripheral Western Cyrillic from a perspective I presumed you held. If you prefer something from the opposite end of the intra-Croatian spectrum, why not Bratulić's Hrvatska ćirilica kao poslovno pismo? Or Ivan Botica's Hrvatska ćirilica u glagoljskim matičnim knjigama zapadno od Krke. If it is the term "Croatian Cyrillic" you object to, know that Botica recently abandoned the term in favour of simply "Cyrillic", and numerous Serbian sources discuss it with more accurate terminology.

But the fact stands, that Cyrillic persisted within the Kingdoms of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia alongside Glagolitic and Latinic. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 09:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You showed more Croatian nationalist irredentist sources that fails in the same case explained previously. Ignored the fact that it's controversial and should explained with caution. Ignored English reliable peer-reviewed source. And not showed page, quote or passage stating exactly that, simply WP:OR. That edit is disruptive, misleading, unstable and not in good faith. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Then demonstrate Botica is a "Croatian nationalist irredentist" with WP:RS. Otherwise, WP:OR is on you. The source you cited and the relevant quotation refer to the dispute over the name of one of the Western Cyrillic varieties, which is of little relevance to the plain statement "and Cyrillic" presently in the lead of the article. Refer to the map of Cyrillic monuments republished in Botica's article. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 18:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Here, demonstrated by quote from PDF "No, hrvatska je znanost i kultura još daleko od konačnih spoznaja, a pogotovo od populari- zacije i »brendiranja« ćirilice kao zasvjedočena »hrvatskoga pisma«, kako se navodi u prijepisu Poljičkoga statuta iz 1665. godine, 6 koje je s ra- prostorima najmanje osam stoljeća supostojalo s ostalim hrvatskim pismima. Zbog nedovoljna znanja i promidžbe ćirilice kao dijela hrvatske pisane baštine hrvatsku ćirilicu nerijetko prate znanstvene neistine i stereotipi koji su dijelom refleksija na dnevnopolitičke i nedavne držav- nopolitičke okvire. 7 Stoga ne iznenađuje da hr- vatske ćirilice nema među dvadeset pet jezika i slovopisa s pridjevom »hrvatski« – čak ni u nekoj od njezinih povijesnih i znanstveno-ide- ološki stvorenih inačica (pismo arvacko, ćirili- ca, bukvica, poljičica, naša glagoljica, divkuša, bosanska azbuka, bosanska ćirilica, bosanska bukvica, hrvatsko-bosanska ćirilica, bosančica, bosanica, bosansko-dalmatinska ćirilica, zapad- na ćirilica, bosanička azbuka, hrvatska ćirilica itd.) 8 – na plakatu proslave datuma 1. rujna 2008. godine kada je s kodom hrv kao jedinom preporučenom oznakom i za bibliografsko i za terminološko označivanje hrvatskoga jezika sti- glo i dugo očekivano međunarodno priznanje hrvatskoga jezika. ..... Ćirilica 19 O prožimanju glagoljice i ćirilice: se samostalno potvrđuje tek u 12. stoljeću, 21 što se vremenski poklapa s posljednjim bizantskim političkim valom na hrvatskome povijesnom prostoru. Istodobno je prisutna, bez imalo pisa- noga diskontinuiteta u narednim stoljećima, u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni. U službi je diplomacije i ekonomskih transakcija dubrovačke srednjo- vjekovne komune prema balkanskom zaleđu. Na srednjovjekovnome se hrvatskom prostoru ćirilica intenzivirala tek u kasnome srednjem vijeku potpomognuta i impulsom iz srednjo- vjekovne Bosne. Od 14. stoljeća uobičajila su se ćirilička slova, doduše na rijetkim sačuvanim mjestima, 22 na stećcima zapadno od Neretve, 23 a od 1430-ih ćirilično je pismo prisutno u hr- vatskoj riječi franjevaca opservanata u samo- stanima u zapadnim krajevima Bosanske vika- rije, svećenika glagoljaša srednjodalmatinskoga područja te nekih plemenitih i neplemenitih rodova i institucija poglavito iz srednjovjekov- noga Hrvatskoga kraljevstva (Acta Croatica). Hrvatska se riječ krajem srednjega vijeka znala zapisivati na ćirilici čak i na Pagu, o čemu svje- doči molba paškog svećenika ninskomu biskupu Jurju Divniću za ređenje nekih klerika. 24 Iako se na prvu stječe dojam da je srednjodalmatinski (poljički i makarski) kulturni areal držao kon- tinuitet ćirilične pismenosti još od najstarijih samostalnih potvrda, činjenica je da se ćirilica kao samostalno pismo počela ondje potvrđivati tek u 15. stoljeću"." ......... It's clearly nationalist, revisionist and irredentist Greater Croatian claims (visible by language and denial, an insulting affront to scientific and academic reasonableness) on Bosnian and/or Serbian Cyrillic works. You still ignored the fact that it's controversial and should explained with caution, ignored English reliable peer-reviewed source. It should not in lede. It's WP:OR by your part. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If Serbo-Croatian is not your first language, or you are unused to scientific works, your comprehension error is most understandable. A translation of the excerpt you just quoted begins, "However, Croatian science and culture is still far from final findings, and particularly from the popularisation and 'branding' of Cyrillic as a 'Croatian script', as it is called in a transcript of the Poljica Statute from the year 1665, and which with varying intensity and in various historical ranges coexisted at least eight centuries with the other Croatian scripts. Because of insufficient knowledge and promotion of Cyrillic as a work of the Croatian literary culture, Croatian Cyrillic is not infrequently followed by scientific untruths and sterotypes, which are in part a reflection of everyday politics and recent state-political circumstances. Because of that, it is unsurprising that there is no [mention of] Croatian Cyrillic among the 25 languages and orthographies with the adjective 'Croatian' — not even in one of her historical and scientific-ideologically created instances (pismo arvacko, ćirilica, bukvica, poljičica, naša glagoljica, divkuša, bosanska azbuka, bosanska ćirilica, bosanska bukvica, hrvatsko-bosanska ćirilica, bosančica, bosanica, bosansko-dalmatinska ćirilica, zapadna ćirilica, bosanička azbuka, hrvatska ćirilica etc.) — on the plaque of the celebration of 1. September 2008, when the code 'hrv' was internationally recognized after a long wait as the sole recommended code for the bibliographic and terminological designation of Croatian language. ..."

I'll have you know that Botica himself — with whom I am personally acquainted but unaffiliated — does not by any means treat the script in question as exclusively Croat. He was writing this in 2011, as the 2011 Croatian census was leading to the controversies that led to the Anti-Cyrillic "protests" in Croatia in 2013, belonging to a small minority of Croatian academics (alongside the likes of Nazor, Bratulić, etc.) who were more openly opposed to the ensuing desecration of (Serbian) Cyrillic signage by those mobs of ignorami. There isn't much ethnopolitical in the paper beyond pointing out the irony of a people persecuting the only script many of their own ancestors knew. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 20:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, if that's what you think. It is undeniable that the source (Damjanović, Stjepan (2014)) included in the article is a nationalist, irredentist and revisionist source that ignores on purpose other state-of-the-art authors to fit POV. Due to this, it fails WP:RS criteria and that ref should be removed. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to remove it on any of those grounds, you must demonstrate your claim here with WP:RS. Otherwise it stands as a corroborating source. You have not once disputed the veracity of the statement you removed, which is all the source is being used to support: that Cyrillic persisted on the territory of the Kingdom of Croatia (alongside Latinic and Glagolitic). Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 20:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I already showed the WP:RS source proof claim (Kamusella, T. (2008)); (Damjanović, S. (2014)) failed to be NPOV and RS by not respecting the neutrality stated by SOTA Kamusella. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. That source does not mention Damjanović at all, anywhere in the book.

What is more, the very first sentence of the abstract of the Damjanović paper, published in the peer-reviewed journay Filologija, is "From the 11th to the 19th century on large parts of the Croatian territory, the population expressed its cultural needs (also) in Cyrillic." Neither the lead nor that corroborating sentence adds any ethnic appellation to "Cyrillic".

Biased or not on ethnic matters, Damjanović is an accomplished philologist. To challenge him on his ethnically neutral statements on this topic, you'll need to cite palaeographers. Kamusella, for example, is a political scientist. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 21:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Damjanović made a political statement in p. 5, 7 and 8-9 that Kamusella stated as problematic bias controversy in that topic. It's not neutral source. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Kamusella's book does not mention Damjanović, who wrote quite a lot on those pages. Can you provide quotations and reasoning, please? Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 21:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Kamusella’s 2008 work, alongside various other descriptions, explained a political controversial issue regarding the appropriation of Old Cyrillic works in the former Yugoslavia by Croats, Bosniaks, and Serbs. Damjanović’s 2014 work is a clear case of the political bias that Kamusella criticized. He claims that the Kulin Charter is written in Croatian Cyrillic, a claim that is highly controversial, if not a complete falsification; Croatian scholar V. Jagić himself in his work stated it is undeniably Serbian Cyrillic, while Bosniaks claim it is Bosnian Cyrillic and Serbs claim it is Serbian Cyrillic. He asserts that the Cyrillic works of the Bosnian Franciscans are Croatian Cyrillic, which is is most untrue; the most prominent figures of that era, Matija Divković and others, explicitly state that their writing and language are in Serbian Cyrillic script and in Bosnian language. Serbian authors maintain it is Serbian Cyrillic, and Bosniaks maintain it is Bosnian Cyrillic. Ultimately, Damjanović, didn't explain this situation, was not neutral and adopted a nationalist bias (of which Kamusella denounced). That is why Damjanović explicitly fails as a reliable source. --~2026-36874-46 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"He claims that the Kulin Charter is written in Croatian Cyrillic". Here is the actual quotation from Damjanović (pp. 4–5): "When I mention literary monuments like the List Kulina bana (1189.) or the Povelja bana Mateja Ninoslava Dubrovačkoj općini (from the 13th century), I am completely aware that I am entering the sensitive and complex problem of assigning ethnonyms to phenomena from deep history, so I want to emphasize that for me the inclusion of a given cultural phenomenon in the history of one national culture does not mean automatic exclusion of another or others." (emphasis mine) On page 5, he proceeds to agree with Mateo Žagar (currently the foremost expert on Glagolitic palaeography) on the inclusion of the List Kulina bana within the Croatian literary corpus in spite of its general exclusion from chrestomathies of Croatian works, bemoaning that "The nineteenth century has bequeathed to us a philological concept that has developed among people, I would say, a need to protect something, to feverishly demonstrate that a given cultural phenomenon belongs only to their culture." He applies this specifically to "Western Cyrillic texts older than the 15th century", providing the List Kulina bana as an example. Žagar's own argument hinged on it being the oldest Shtokavian text, a dialect he and colleagues view as common heritage among the modern ethnic groups, and more importantly because it survives in a transcript from the Dubrovnik chancellery. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 22:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

References